M/S Kolhar Canes Limited Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/S KOLHAR CANES LIMITED (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013) PLOT NO. 140 ANGADAGERI VILLAGE TQ. BASAVANAGA BAGEWADI DIST VIJAYAPURA 586 216 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M S BELLUBI.

¶12

(BY SRI. S S HALALLI,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND PD, DIRECTORATE OF SUGAR KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶17

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY

¶18

2 -

¶19

��

¶20

AND INTERNAL TRADE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY UDYOG BHAVAN,

¶21

NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶22

THE CHIEF DIRECTOR (SUGAR) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION ROOM NO. 581, KRISHI BHAVAN, R.P. ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶23

THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, CBAB COMPLEX, F BLOCK, V FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 008.

¶24

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, (MSME AND MINES) 135, 1^ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. SUDHIR SINGH R VIJAYPUR-DSGI FOR R1 TO R3; BY SRI. PRASHANT F GOUDAR ADV. FOR R4; BY SRI. G.B. YADAV HCGP FOR R5.)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING AN ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 VIDE FILE NO. 25(2196)/12-ST-52-54 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT CHIEF DIRECTOR SUGAR VIDE ANNEXURE Q AND FURTHER QUASH THE LETTER DATED 03.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

IN W.P.No. 200341/2024

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

M/S KOLHAR CANES LIMITED (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER

¶31

3 -

¶32

��

¶33

THE COMPANIES ACT 2013) PLOT NO. 140 ANGADAGERI VILLAGE TQ. BASAVANAGA BAGEWADI DIST VIJAYAPURA 586 216 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M S BELLUBI.

¶34

…PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. S S HALALLI,ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶38

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND PD, DIRECTORATE OF SUGAR KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶39

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY

¶40

AND INTERNAL TRADE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY UDYOG BHAVAN,

¶41

NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶42

THE CHIEF DIRECTOR (SUGAR) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION ROOM NO. 581, KRISHI BHAVAN, R.P. ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶43

THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

¶44

HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, CBAB COMPLEX, F BLOCK, V FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 008.

¶45

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, (MSME AND MINES) 135, 1^ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

4 -

¶48

��

¶49

(BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R VIJAYPUR DSGI FOR R1 TO R3; BY SRI. PATIL KALYAN RAO SHANKER RAO ADV. FOR R4; BY SRI. G.B. YADAV HCGP FOR R5)

¶50

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AUTORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED:03.01.2022 AND 10.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND M FOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPLEMENTING THE IEM BY EXCLUIDNG THE DELAY PERIOD SPENT IN TAKING APPROVAL FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS PROVIDED UUNDER SUB-CLAUSE(1) (a) (b) (c) OF CLAUSE 6C OF THE SUGARCANE (CONTROL) AMENDMENT ORDER 2020 AND ETC.

¶51

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶53

ORAL ORDER

¶54

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶55

In W.P.No.200838/2024, petitioner seeks for the following

¶56

reliefs:-

¶57

I) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order in the like nature quashing an order dated 19.02.2024 vide file no. 25(2196)/12-ST-52-54 passed by the respondent Chief Director Sugar vide Annexure Q and further Quash the letter dated 03.10.2023 issued by the 4^th respondent

¶58

5 -

¶59

��

¶60

Commissioner vide Annexure -J in the interest of justice and equity.

¶61

II) Issue a direction, directing the respondent Chief Director(Sugar) to consider the extension of IEM No.102/SIA/IMO/2014 dated:20.01.2014 by excluding time spent in getting approvals by state Authorities and by accepting rupees 50 Lakhs additional performance bank guarantee as provided under Clause 6C (2)(b) of the Sugarcane(Control) (Amendment) order,2020, in the interest of justice and equity

¶62

III) Or to pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶63

In W.P.No.200341/2024, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶64

I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order in the like nature directing the respondent no.3 authorities to consider the representations dated:03.01.2022 and 10.01.2024 vide Annexure-I and m for the extension of time for implementing the IEM by excluding the delay period spent in taking approval from the State Government as provided under Sub-clause(1) (a) (b) (c) of clause 6c of the sugarcane (control) Amendment order 2020, in the interest of justice and equity ;

¶65

II) Or to pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶66

6 - ��

¶67

Since the parties to both the petitions are one and the same and are relate to the same subject matter, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶68

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶69

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner initially preferred in W.P.No.200341/2024 interalia contending that the 3^rd respondent had not taken any steps / action pursuant to the representations at Annexures-L and M dated 03.01.2022 and 10.01.2021 for extention of time for implementing the IEM in favour of the petitioner and that necessary directions are to be issued to the 3^rd respondent – Chief Director (Sugar), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Distribution, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, and for other reliefs. The said writ petition in W.P.No.200341/2024 was preferred by the petitioner on 19.01.2024.

¶70

It is a matter of record that the aforesaid W.P.No.200341/2024 was posted before this Court on 01.02.2024, on which date, the learned DSGI accepted notice on behalf of

¶71

��

¶72

7 -

¶73

respondents 1 to 3, including respondent No.3 to whom the aforesaid representations had been submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, during the pendency of the aforesaid W.P.No.200341/2024, the 3^rd respondent – Chief Director (Sugar), passed an order dated 19.02.2024 rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of time and confiscating the Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 19.02.2024 at Annexure-Q in W.P.No.200838/2024 was challenged

¶74

by the petitioner in addition to challenging the letter / communication dated 03.10.2023 issued by the 4^th respondent – State of Karnataka to the 3^rd respondent – Chief Director (Sugars).

¶75

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner that his representations at Annexures-L and M dated 03.01.2022 and 10.01.2021 had not been considered by the 3^rd respondent and petitioner had already approached this Court in W.P.No.200341/2024, in which 3^rd respondent was notified on 01.02.2024 itself. It is submitted that subsequent to 01.02.2024, the 3^rd respondent did not notify the petitioner nor provide any

¶76

8 - ��

¶77

opportunity to the petitioner despite pendency of W.P.No.200341/2024 and has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is violative of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned order at Annexure-Q suffers from various legal and factual infirmities and illegalities, the 3^rd respondent did not provide sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before W.P.No.200341/2024 was filed or subsequently and on this ground also, the 3^rd respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is granted by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would appear before the 3^rd respondent and file necessary pleadings, documents etc., which may be directed to be considered by the 3^rd respondent by providing an opportunity and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶78

Per contra, learned DSGI for respondents 1 to 3 would

¶79

reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that despite sufficient and reasonable opportunity being granted in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of establishment of sugar factory, the petitioner did not take

¶80

9 - ��

¶81

necessary steps in this regard and consequently, the 3^rd respondent was fully justified in rejecting the request for extension of time submitted by the petitioner by passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference in the present petition.

¶82

So also, learned AGA for respondents 4 and 5 – State of Karnataka would also reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that sufficient and reasonable opportunity / time had been granted / provided in favour of the petitioner for starting sugar factory and since the petitioner did not exercise due diligence in this regard, the 4^th respondent was constrained to issue the impugned communication / letter at Annexure-J dated 03.10.2023 withdrawing the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner and as such, the impugned communication / letter does not warrant interference in the present petition. It is also contended that the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to any relief at the hands of this Court in the present petition, particularly having regard to the financial status of the petitioner who is incapable and not in a position to start sugar factory as on today.

¶83

10 -

¶84

��

¶85

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the provisions contained in the Sugarcane Control (Amendments) Order, 2020, in order to point out that the petitioner would be entitled to seek extension of time by furnishing additional Bank Guarantee, which has been done by him, had not been considered by the 3^rd respondent while passing the impugned order which is vitiated on this ground also. It is submitted that the petitioner would appear before the 3^rd respondent and demonstrate his bonafide by way of filing necessary pleadings, documents etc., and the same may be considered by the 3^rd respondent in accordance with law.

¶86

After having heard the learned counsel for parties, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective contentions, it is an undisputed material on record that the petitioner had already approached this Court in W.P.No.200341/2024 ventilating his grievances and his request for extension of time and representations at Annexures – L and M had not been considered by the 3^rd respondent. It is also not in dispute that in W.P.No.200341/2024, the 3^rd respondent was notified through the learned DSGI on 01.02.2024. In this context, a perusal

¶87

��

¶88

11 -

¶89

of the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 will indicate that no proceedings took place between 01.02.2024 when the 3^rd respondent was notified and on 19.02.2024 when the impugned order was passed, which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that after the petitioner having filed W.P.No.200341/2024 and 3^rd respondent being notified about the same, the 3^rd respondent did not provide sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before proceeding to pass the impugned order. In fact, the impugned order clearly indicate that though the 3^rd respondent was notified about the pendency of W.P.No.200341/2024 on 01.02.2024 itself, the 3^rd respondent does not even refer to the said petition before passing the impugned order subsequently on 19.02.2024, much less, taking permission from this Court nor informed this Court about his intention to pass the impugned order during the pendency of W.P.No.200341/2024.

¶90

Under these circumstances, without expressing any

¶91

opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions and on the sole / short ground of violative of principle of natural justice and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his claim before the 3^rd respondent, I deem it just and appropriate

¶92

12 -

¶93

��

¶94

to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 19.02.2024 and remit the matter back to the 3^rd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.

¶95

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶96

ORDER

¶97

(i) W.P.No.200838/2024 is allowed in part.

¶98

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 19.02.2024

¶99

passed by the 3^rd respondent is hereby set aside.

¶100

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶101

(iv) Petitioner undertakes to appear before the 3^rd respondent on 21.11.2024 without awaiting further notice.

¶102

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents etc., before the 3^rd respondent, who shall consider the same and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision within a period of one month from 21.11.2024 .

¶103

��

¶104

13 -

¶105

(vi) All rival contentions between the parties including the contention urged by respondents 4 and 5 – State of Karnataka are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶106

(vii) In view of disposal of W.P.No.200838/2024,

¶107

W.P.No.200341/2024 does not survive for consideration and the

¶108

same is accordingly disposed of.

¶109

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶110

Srl. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

M/S Kolhar Canes Limited v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kolhar Canes Limited v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayeda Banu Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nagamma Vs Shakunatala and Ors.

Khasim Minya Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Siddappa and Ors. Vs the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Chandrakant and Ors. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Vidayavati W/O Siddappa Rodde Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.